quality posts: 6
AdderXYU wrote:Besides this being an incredibly weak interpretation of parody (either M-W needs better editors, or you simply cherrypicked the concept you preferred), it really doesn't matter. Woot said, very simply, NO COPYRIGHTED CHARACTERS. That should mean that, even if this is a parody, it should be rejected. Harry Potter was a book before a movie, and the cover of every book depicts him basically this very way. Presumably the art is just as copyrighted as the books are. Same with the Dr. Seuss debauchery. In this tee alone, there are eleven books worth of characters, all under copyright, being represented. Given the rules woot posted, neither tee has a right to win.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that is the definitive definition (redundant?) of "parody." I had first done a search in Google using "define: parody" that I actually thought was more fitting, but decided to use something with more credibility. The Dr. Seuss-based submission definitely falls under the category of a parody as well.
IF, however, Woot's rule on "no copyrighted characters" is to be taken at face value and not the always implied (as far as I have ever seen in the rejections at least) unless parodied, THEN yes, you are correct. However, based on the language used ("Obviously..."), I would assume that they meant it to be interpreted as is the general custom in these derbies.
I suppose one's choice in design comes down to how literally you think Woot will/should enforce their rule.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other user(s). Please keep in mind that these are only opinions and should not be inherently considered as factual statements. Thank you.